Writing about expanding oil drilling without talking about its impact on
the climate
indicates a deep state of denial. (cc photo illustration:
-POD)

By Peter Hart
It's gotten to the point that sensible people can agree that climate
change is a real problem in the world. But some people manage to write
about energy policy and pretend that that problem doesn't exist–which is
perhaps a more dangerous kind of climate change denial.

Take Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson. As we noted recently (FAIR Blog, 8/26/14), Samuelson is no longer
really a climate denier. But it's hard to tell how meaningful the shift
in his views is when you see what he writes nowadays. His column in
today's print edition of the Post (9/28/14) is a full endorsement of increasing US oil drilling.

"One of the economy’s good-news stories is the oil boom, a derivative
of the natural gas boom," he writes, explaining that fracking
technology has been applied to oil drilling and has "yielded similarly
astounding results." Samuelson declares: "By all logic, we should be
working to sustain the boom." Alas we are not, and his column goes on to
explain why it's disappointing that we aren't drilling more oil and
exporting it on tankers.

He doesn't skip the downsides of drilling for more oil–he gives them one entire sentence:

Sure, there are concerns: Rail transport of crude oil
involves safety issues; there are continuing environmental worries about
fracking. Still, public gains outweigh the costs.

Whew. Back on planet Earth, burning more fossil fuels is going to
have at least one consequence: It will continue contributing to the
heating of the planet. But Samuelson never mentions climate change,
which is too often treated as a non-event in coverage of energy (FAIR Blog, 5/15/12; 9/9/14).

In a way, this is merely a different type of climate change denial,
one that wishes away the consequences of continuing to burn fossil
fuels. Interestingly, the Samuelson column has a "Read more about this
topic" link at the bottom, which takes readers to a Posteditorial on the same subject, headlined "Commerce Dept. Should Allow Exports of US Crude." This is notable because the Post editorial page has drawn attention for a series they're calling "A Climate for Change," which
is supposed to represent the paper's decision to take the climate
crisis seriously. Except, apparently, when the same editorial page is
making the case for drilling for more oil.

If climate change represents a profound crisis, the only sensible policy is to leave fossil fuels in the ground (Extra!, 5/13).
A media system that has begun to understand the scale of the problem
while at the same time advocating for policies that will make the
problem worse is still in denial.